Convicts living in £250-a-night guest houses to ease prison overcrowding

By JAMES SLACK

Last updated at 01:28 24 January 2008

Criminals are being treated to £250-a-night bed and breakfast in private homes on residential streets instead of being held in jail.

The Ministry of Justice has spent £2.39million paying the rent of 339 offenders who would otherwise be in prison, either on remand or finishing their sentences.

Critics said it was yet another desperate attempt to ease the pressure on our overcrowded jails.

Residents in areas where the suspects and former prisoners are housed have not been informed of the background of their new neighbours, who include burglars and muggers.

They are not confined to the properties, but normally have to observe a curfew.

The initiative centres on reducing the use of remand.

Suspects are jailed if the courts are not happy that they have a stable home address and may abscond.

The same reason also prevents a convicted criminal from being freed with an electronic tag up to four and a half months early, under the Home Detention Curfew scheme.

So Ministers are instead putting them up in private "bail" houses across the country.

For the scheme, the Government has signed contracts with a private company called ClearSprings.

The firm, which also provides premises to asylum seekers, is offering up to 350 beds in residential homes.

They provide staff to look after the offender, and therefore offer a 'stable' address.

The first six months of the contract paid ClearSprings £2,391,470.

But during that time, the vast majority of the properties were not used as courts showed reluctance to grant the special bail over fears the criminals might re-offend.

As a result, the average nightly bill was a staggering £250. If they had been kept in jail, the bill would have been only £100.

The Ministry of Justice is now trying to get better value for money from the contracts.

Two internal notes have been sent to probation staff, who make bail requests on behalf of remand prisoners, telling them to make it a 'top priority' to persuade the courts to use ClearSprings.

Staff are told to "champion" the release of inmates into the houses.

Up to five suspects or convicts can live in each property, which are located in more than 150 towns and cities.

Tory justice spokesman Nick Herbert - who fought off a scheme in his own Arundel and South Downs constituency - said: "These are people who should be in jail, or at least in facilities linked to prison.

"These houses are just dropped into the community, and cause huge disruption."

He added: "It's totally unacceptable to try and reduce the prison population by stealth in this way."

Matthew Elliott, of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said the Government is so "embarrassed" about prison overcrowding - which has already seen 13,000 inmates released early - that it is willing to "throw money at the problem".

It adds: "We aim to give people leaving prison the best possible chance of sustained independence."

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said the scheme provides an "alternative" for those who do not need to be in prison and should eventually work out cheaper than jail.

• Residents were horrified when they found out about plans to open one of the houses for criminals in their town.

They only discovered what was to take place in a residential street in Arundel, West Sussex, when they were sent a letter saying the home had been acquired for "supportive housing".

Telephone calls to ClearSprings - which was renting the property from a private landlord - revealed that the company wanted to bring in four exconvicts, or suspected offenders who would otherwise have been refused bail.

A hastily arranged public meeting on the issue was attended by more than 200 residents.

ClearSprings, recognising the hostility it faced, shelved the plans. It has terminated the lease, and promised no offenders will be housed there.